Interesting how the R was a few tenths slower than the GT-S in other races but this one is what I expected given the hp advantage and AWD capabilities of the R. I knew I questioned the other races outcome for a reason.

 

YES!

 

Not sure how much I put into this test. When you have a guy as the starter, it's not the most objective test since reaction time plays a factor. Only credible test I've seen the AMG GT S is much faster in the 1/4 mile, which is not surprising since it weights so much less. Now, in the **real** world at the stop light...the F-Type does quite well since LC is not a factor. Unless this test is doing it without LC for the AMG

2016 Jaguar F-type R Coupe vs. 2016 Mercedes-AMG GT S, 2015 Porsche 911 Carrera GTS: Final Scoring, Performance Data, and Complete Specs

 

Not sure if LC was in play or not, but if you look at the numbers shown towards the end of the video, the GT was off the line first and was ahead for the first 10 feet, but the FTR made up the distance quickly and ended up 3 tenths of a second ahead at the end.

On paper it looks like the FTR should win. While the FTR is heavier (3,814 lbs vs 3,627 lbs), it has more power (550 hp vs 504 hp), torque (502 vs 479), and a better weight to HP ratio (6.9 vs 7.2), plus AWD.

There are plenty of factors that could be involved here including reaction times, driver skill, LC, etc. Neither car broke traction so that shouldn't be a factor. We really need to do several tests with min/max and average runs on the results to get a real sense.

I see numbers all over the place for all these cars, it all depends on who is doing the tests, how they insure controlled conditions, and how many tests they do to establish a reasonable baseline.

If I were shopping again, I'd definitely consider both vehicles. Both cars are ridiculously fast. I think the interior on the AMG GT is superior, but I still prefer the exterior of the F-Type. I'd be happy with either, but for the money I think the FTR is a better deal personally.

 

So I went back and checked C&D numbers...looks like the original number of 11.2 @ 127mph is not correct, it's more like 11.5...I still think the AMG GT-S is faster than the R AWD because of the weight and I've yet to see any publication have the AWD R into the 11.5s or 11.6s. I think actual weight diff is more like 400 lbs, not the 200-ish using curb weight. But in the real world, w/o launch control, it'd be a pretty good race, especially since there's no lag on the jag.

 

They are both amazing, both awesomely fast and both worthy.


Not sure I care about 1/4 mile for real world.

I love the F Type Style, exhaust, motor. ( I drove a AMG GT-S before buying FTR).


Wouldn't mind the AMG GT-S infotainment system and interior though...

 

Agree, if you spent your life at a track then the quarter mile times / weight etc.. are an issue.. for pure driving pleasure .. its the Jag. Although I do like the AMG better than a Porsche..
Although the thread does has interesting technical points being raised for general interest.
Lawrence.

 

It looked to me as if the Jag got off the line first.

 

time only matters on a drag strip or forum racing, and its the awd making it faster over first 60ft

the trap speed is the true indicator of a cars power, and here the merc is 4mph faster

out in the real world, the merc will walk it pretty easily

 

The merc was certainly sleeping at the line.
Slap some sticker tires on both and then re-launch the heck outta them.

 

+1